"The evidence shows that these four men also knew about a 1998 criminal
investigation of Sandusky relating to suspected sexual misconduct with a young boy in
a Penn State football locker room shower. Again, they showed no concern about that
victim. The evidence shows that Mr. Paterno was made aware of the 1998 investigation
of Sandusky, followed it closely, but failed to take any action, even though Sandusky
had been a key member of his coaching staff for almost 30 years, and had an office just
steps away from Mr. Paterno’s. At the very least, Mr. Paterno could have alerted the
entire football staff, in order to prevent Sandusky from bringing another child into the
Lasch Building. Messrs. Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley also failed to alert the
Board of Trustees about the 1998 investigation or take any further action against Mr.
Sandusky. None of them even spoke to Sandusky about his conduct. In short, nothing
was done and Sandusky was allowed to continue with impunity."

need to be punished. Big Ten should kick them out, US Dept of Ed should consider pulling the accreditation. This is a HUGE issue. Happy Valley was used as a one-man sex club with under-aged children. We still do not know if more adult men were involved in this. Did Sandusky pimp out these little boys to alums, Trustees, Faculty? We may never know the truth.

If it was handled properly in 1998 then they get a slap on the wrist. But now we know of the cover-up, maybe the electric chair is in order. Havent we learned anything? The cover up is ALWAYS worse than the actual event. What we have is organized, sex trafficking at a state funded university.

I propose we let the victims form the punishment panel. May God give the victims peace and comfort.

I felt sick to my stomach reading his. How this wasn't brought to the public when a mother files a report to the police that a grown man showered with her boy. This could have ended back 16 years ago had people just opened thier eyes.

I liked JoPa when Penn State joined the Big Ten. But with each passing year, I started wondering. What man, financially comfortable 50x over, with impeccable legacy, doesn't eventually step aside into his 60's or 70s to allow loyal staff a chance at HC? Bo stepped aside for Gary Moeller when he believed the time was right. A class move, rewarding a long time, loyal assistant. But the way Paterno zealously refused to give up the reins, obviously thinking of no one but himself, led me to begin despising the man as the years passed. It told me JoPa was all about JoPa.

In that light, is this report any wonder? Hardly. JoPa was all about JoPa.

Tear that statue down, remove the name from buildings and streets, and if PSU wishes, they can quietly appreciate his work leading their football team by reflecting on record books and watching old videos. Anything more will stand as a reflection of the crimes that were committed here, where football, and the legacy of an egocentric old man were more important than innocent children.

Take the statue down. Take his name off the library and anywhere else it is. If PSU wants to show it's remorseful, the name "Paterno" should be nowhere to be found this fall. If they want to celebrate this man after what we know now, they deserve everything they might get from the NCAA/Big Ten.

Leave the statue up but put a giant engraving on it talking about the dangers of hubris, legacy over what's right, etc. etc. Make it a monument to the failure of the individuals and institution that enabled child rape.

After reading the press release summary of the report, I believe that it has been conducted in a fair manner and one major important thing stands out to me: they never made the jump of saying that Penn State covered this up for football.

They may have covered it up for Joe Pa, who, while he does represent football at Penn State, only is a coach. I find it so gut-wrenchingly disturbing that so many people say that because Joe Pa committed a crime, that the Penn State football program should be "dealt with by the NCAA". This is horrific because it is putting Joe Pa on the very pedestal that he should be torn down from. He is a man, and a man is not football, and that is the lesson to learn from everyone who trusted him. Not to mention, the NCAA will offer no retribution for the victims, and is a useless side diversion of something that should be handled by justice and by God. Not some stupid organization that handles the rules of a game that children play.

While they may have covered it up for Paterno, there is actually a greater reason why the board of trustees, the presidents, the vice presidents, etc. didn't do more to act, and that is because Penn State was a "prestigious university". Anybody who thinks that our great university, the University of Michigan, is free from admonishment is naive and needs to open their eyes. In the fall of 2011, there was a scandal involving numerous faculty at the Medical School regarding an individual that had been storing child pornography on a University computer. Nobody did anything about it until some nurse found a flash drive of his and saw the pictures on it. What, you really think that nobody did anything for the sake of protecting football at the University of Michigan? No, it's for its prestige and reputation, which is similar here. The Sandusky scandal has enough weight to bring down the whole institution. All Universities cover up the suicides that occur on their campuses, the more violent crimes, and often, faculty that break the law are dealt with in-house, even though THAT is the thing which can lead to this situation with Sandusky. And I don't believe any of those suicides, cover-ups of violent crime, and in-house breaches of ethical conduct have anything to do with football, or require the wrath of some silly organization that enforces rules for a game.

The difference is a nurse found those pictures belonging to someone not associated with the football team, while Sandusky was part of the football team. Big difference. Michigans prestige would have taken a hit as a university but PSU was gonna take a hit with football first, deeply and upfront, followed by the university in general.

But you're wrong in thinking that the first thought that goes through someone's mind when they hear of a child molester running free in the athletic department is "I guess I won't be sending my son to play football there anymore". It probably is more like "How could the university allow someone like this to go free? I am not sending my son to this university anymore." Like I said - football is just a game, and it's kind of sad that people are losing perspective on the issue. Acts that are this heinous have nothing to do with a game - they have to do with people.

It has nothing to do with the gamebut has everything to do with the PSU football program. That this was covered up is a symptom of placing the football program above all else. That's a problem.

If you've even driven through PSU you know that football is king. There is nothing within 2 hours of that campus - everything revolves around Penn State and really Penn State football. That's a culture that needs to change.

I'm pretty comfortable in saying that in Ann Arbor, the football program does not take precedence over the University and the morals it stands for. Penn State now has to show that it is the same way in Happy Valley - that's why the canned Paterno so quickly.

THEY COVERED IT UP TO PROTECT THE FOOTBALL PROGRAM!!!! I'm yelling because you seem to fail to recognize that. THEY PROTECTED THEIR MONEYMAKING MACHINE BY ALLOWING CHILDREN TO BE HARMED FOR OVER A DECADE!!
This is the absolute definition of lack of institutional control and the NCAA must act.

they covered it up to protect the football program. But it goes even farther than that because it also protects the image of the entire community. The place isn't called "Happy Valley" for no reason.

Even if Sanducky had nothing to do with football and was just a run-of-the-mill type child abuser, the community would have stil probably had a difficult time coming to grips with it. The fact that he was a part of the sacred football team just ratchets up the head asplode level for the community.

The nurse finding the pictures is what triggered the investigation. No one knew about the guy prior to that discovery. The nurse reported it immediately. The Michigan Heath System investigation stalled because one lawyer thought felt it should not have been reported due to lack of evidence, but it ended up getting reported because of the university doctors who felt it had to be. PSU leaders knew about the 1998 investigation, had a second incident in 2001, and still did nothing. These situations are not even comparable. There is huge difference between child pornography on a flash drive and allowing a pedophile to roam free for over 10 years.

No, they did. The female resident reported it to her superior. Her superior notified his superior, and then they went about their business for six months while absolutely nothing was happening and this guy with the child pornography was allowed to run free. After six months of nobody doing anything despite knowing about it, the guy was fired and Coleman hired an independent firm to investigate what had gone wrong. Indeed, even in this instance, the scandal involved people from all levels of the chain of command that did nothing. Why didn't the female resident report the crime to the police? How come her supervisor didn't? Especially something as despicable and horrifying as child pornography.

"this guy with the child pornography was allowed to run free" - seriously? Are you really trying to compare this to the Sandusky situation?

The investigation stalled for six months because of one lawyer and the university ended up reporting individual after others pushed for it. This happened because people at the university did something. If no one did anything, it would not have been reported. Michigan's problem was why didn't action happen sooner. Penn State's problem is why no action happened at all with an even more serious crime. Dude, your argument is completely flawed.

Some creeper in the Med school has some nasty pictures (that admittedly caused great harm to take) vs. over a decade raping of children under cover and protection and lure of PSUs football program. No comparison here at all.

Yeah I'm not comparing it to the Sandusky situation. Rather, I'm saying that people at the bottom of the chain (like McQueary) undertook similar actions, but the delay in going through the chain of command (and with all of the firings) is disturbingly similar and it goes back to an idea that is REMOVED from football and that is the idea of protecting the reputation of an institution.

While they may have covered it up for Paterno, there is actually a greater reason why the board of trustees, the presidents, the vice presidents, etc. didn't do more to act, and that is because Penn State was a "prestigious university". Anybody who thinks that our great university, the University of Michigan, is free from admonishment is naive and needs to open their eyes. In the fall of 2011, there was a scandal involving numerous faculty at the Medical School regarding an individual that had been storing child pornography on a University computer. Nobody did anything about it until some nurse found a flash drive of his and saw the pictures on it.

You have got to be kidding me. These scenarios are so vastly different it sickens me to see them compared. Penn State's football coaches and athletic department allowed a molester of children to go on about his business for the sake of the football program. I don't care if the program is punished athletically, but if you think that the reason behind the cover up was anything other that "we need to protect PSU football" then you're oblivious.

If this happened at Michigan, I don't know what I'd do. I'd probably want to see the football program put on hiatus at a minimum. My alma mater and what it stands for is much, much, much more important than my alma mater's football team. It seems at Penn State, that wasn't the case for these individuals.

I know where you're coming from, trust me. The first thing you think of is that all Penn State is there for is football. That Spanier, Curley, whomever.. all they care about is football. Because that's what life is to people like you - football.

But football is just a game. A pointless game. Something which is far more important that Penn State football is the institution itself - of Penn State university. And the reputation of the school is far more important than the reputation of any football program. I'm not denying that the athletic department is at fault - but I believe that the rationale for their cover up had more to do with Paterno and the University, and not "Penn State football". And yet again - you're elevating "football" to a pedestal higher than what it should be, just as your purport the people that failed to report did. How ironic.

I think you need to read again. Let me be a little more clear - the Michigan football program means jack shit nothing compared to the University of Michigan.

If this happened at UM, I would want the program completely axed. If we ever get to a point where protecting Michigan football allows us to excuse a child molester, then I don't want the University to have a football team. (Yes I realize that would mean the demise of an entire athletic department. Whatever. We can go the route of the Ivy Leaguers).

I don't know how that's putting football on a pedastal. At Penn State football is life - they put it on a pedastal. They protected it at the cost of young children. I'm saying that is clearly wrong and that football is just a team sport that pales in comparison to the University at large.

Now, do I think that the PSU program should be axed: no. I think PSU needs to do some serious in-house work in making sure people know that PSU football != PSU.

To say that these guys were only protecting Sandusky, I say "why?" They were protecting Sandusky because he's an old friend? Because he's a goold ole boy? Or because if he goes down, the program takes serious hits and by extension Joe Pa and others go down and the program suffers. They could have fired him ASAP, and it would have hurt the program, but not themselves. Instead, they tried to cover it up, for what can only be the sake of the program.

If this type of scandal was at Michigan I would fully support closing down the football program. It's a fun game but it's just not worth sacrificing values to maintain a false image of prestige.

In fact, even without a scandal, I can't help but wonder if the football program should be scaled back in Ann Arbor. But I suppose it helps a lot of other non-football athletes so it's probably still worth having.

...would be that football at big schools like Michigan casts a disproportionately large shadow on the image of the University and the community. Football is not what defines the University but to many "fans" or outsiders, if you mention U of M football would be their only reference point.

Compare that other schools with the Ivy League being an excellent example. Everybody (average joes & educated elites alike) thinks of Harvard or Yale as great schools. Michigan could potentially have a similar reputation if we scaled back the football program to be on par with the non-scholarship level of the Ivies. Obviously, this isn't likely to happen because the football team is a money generating behemoth that helps fund other lesser sports.

But the risk is that as long as we have something as big and sacred as football, that corruption could enter and it could provide a nasty scandal. Maybe not a sex abuse case like PSU, but who knows what could emerge with even the slightest lapse in judgement of a few key people.

Thank you, this is a very rational post, and I do appreciate you taking the time to better understand what I'm saying and giving me a chance to understand what you are saying.

I think the difference between what you're saying and what I'm saying is that you're saying that they didn't report the crimes and tried to cover it up to protect Penn State football whereas I am saying that they did not report the crimes and tried to cover it up in order to protect Penn State and Paterno. I'm not jumping to any other conclusions than what was given in the report. The report says nothing about the rationale of the officials' neglect stemming from FOOTBALL but rather for reputation of the institution and for their personal reputation. The janitor that failed to report the crimes was doing so not in fear of hurting the football program's image, but in fear of the retribution that would come from an action that would result in the firing of a famous coach, Paterno.

What you're saying is a huge leap of faith. The notion that the cover up was implemented in order to protect the sport of football at Penn State, when the report fails to mention that at all. It is vastly more likely that their intention of covering up the problem was to protect Penn State itself, the reputation of Joe, and the repuation of the president and board of trustees. Without a reputation, the whole school collapses. I don't think that getting rid of football really hurts the university that much. If you look at the University of Chicago, for example, their elimination of D1 football back in the early 20th century hasn't really affected their academic reputation that much. Rather, if it had come out that Penn State officials had neglected to even just PREVENT a child predator from coming onto campus, then the whole university would tank as its academic reputation would die.

But what disturbs me is how synonymous the notion of protecting Paterno and the notion of protecting Penn State football is... that shows that the culture of Penn State that we all say must change actually is within ourselves too! We need to stop taking Paterno and talking about him as a larger-than-life figure. He's just a human.

As for why they would protect Sandusky - yes, he was like a brother to them. But as he goes down, not the football program (that would always be strong regardless of the coach), but the WHOLE UNIVERSITY would go down.. something which would be irreversible.

Were the pictures stored on a University computer? I thought they were on the jump drive, and they were discovered when the resident looked on it for some identifying info so she could return it to its rightful owner

The "coverup" at U-M was not far-reaching. It was the fault of one hospital-affiliated legal official who decided to not pursue it once it was brought to his or her attention. That person is no longer with the U, and the U has publcly acknowledged that it was handled wrongly. It has supposedly changed procedures so one person can't become the logjam/stopping point when allegations are made.

Your point stands though: the U, like many of its peers, has its own dark moments and times when it has mishandled things. Sometimes you have to wonder whether people actually learn from these events.

i think your last sentence is the reason why punishment is so necessary. people unfortunately do have the instinct to cover up and protect themselves, and while i think obviously sandusky and the child porn incident at u of m were orders of magnitude apart, the motivation is the same and that is what is so disturbing. the resident had the right instinct - something was wrong and she reported it as best she knew how. mcqueary knew something was wrong and reported it also (the argument over whether it was sufficient isn't my point here). what is so very wrong is that the people above them, the people in authority, chose to keep it quiet, ultimately out of the same motivation - protecting something, whether it is football or the larger institution, i don't think it matters. i believe in u of m's case, the system structure was conducive to cover up- dps ultimately reporting to hospital administration allowed one lawyer to be able to choose to keep it quiet. paterno, et.al chose to keep it quiet because their structure allowed it as well. punishment is the only thing we know will motivate institutions to change their policies so that no one can choose to be quiet. in fact, i thought the u of m stuff ultimately came out because one of the dps officers saw the scandal coming out of psu in november and came forward because nothing had been done about the u of m case (and the resident was pursuing it as well at the same time through the medical school, if i remember correctly). the point is that, as much as we'd like to believe we can rely on people to make the right choice, it can take something so horrible to be a motivation for institutions to examine themselves to make sure the same thing doesn't happen in their institution. and that is why punishment is necessary. to say that the consequences of cover up are worse than the consequences of being transparent. and it needs to be harsh and it won't be fair because it will almost certainly affect people who never were involved in the first place. but that's the price we pay to set an example as a society that we will not stand for people in authority using their positions to protect themselves and what is important to them, rather than doing the right thing.

I definitely agree with you, this is what I am trying to say. However, I don't really believe in blind punishment over stricter enforcement and structure changes. If enforcement continues to be lax and the structure is conducive to failure, then these infractions will occur over and over again. But blind punishment will not necessarily change what happens in the future.

yeah, i agree with you, and i'm not calling for psu to be burned to the ground. it isn't that i have some specific punishment in mind, i just don't think it's necessarily sufficient to say, well, everyone involved is gone and we changed some policies. that may be sufficient for the culture to change at psu (an absolute requirement, and i'm not too convinced it's happened). but there has to be something about it that motivates everyone in a similar position to say, how can we prevent this from happening here? and maybe the long, drawn out process that started in november and is sure to continue for years is going to be enough for other schools to put in preemptive policies, but i'm not convinced it's enough. again, i don't feel like i have the right answer, i just want whatever is necessary for a future university employee/administrator to go straight to the police when they come across something wrong.

Yes, sorry, I pulled out the anecdote before checking up on the story, and so there were some details that I missed. It was on a flash drive yes, but the fact of the matter was that people even in this case followed the chain of command and didn't pursue the case outside the chain of command.

Penn State has done somewhat the right things so far by firing literally everybody involved, appointing an independent investigator, and establishing a compliance committee.

The point I was trying to (admittedly erroneously) make was that all universities have their dark moments and the instictive reaction of people at the bottom of the chain is just to pass it up and do their immediate responsibility. That's the bureaucratic structure, and there will always be problems.

"Further, they exposed this child to additional harm by alerting Sandusky, who was the only one who knew the child’s identity, about what McQueary saw in the shower on the night of February 9, 2001."

It is not beyond the realm of possibilities that the reason Victim #2 has never been located is because Sandusky, scared over the possibility that the 1998 incident would now come to light, made sure the boy would never be able to speak out against him. The only person who knows who the boy in the shower was is Sandusky and Sandusky was freaking TOLD by these bastards they knew about the situation but weren't going to report him.

"Although concern to treat the child abuser humanely was expressly stated, no such sentiments were ever expressed by them for Sandusky’s victims." - from the report

I honestly do not know how this football program could really ever be trusted with the welfare of anyone ever again, which brings into question how they could even really have a football program. With the consent of senior management at the school, not just within the department, a known child molestor was treated with delicacy, and not a single thought was given to what this person was doing to lives and families.

Also, here's Lack Of Institutional Control in a nutshell:

" The Board did not independently ask for more information or assess the underreporting by Spanier about the Sandusky investigation after May 2011and thereby failed to oversee properly his executive management of the worst crisis in Penn State’s history"

The Board Of Trustees is supposed to essentially act as a check for senior management, but instead essentially approved everything that was done with no investigation or question as to why things were being handled as they had been. Combine this with no regular reporting procedures, as the report mentions, and I think there is more than enough for some sanctions on those grounds alone.

"This is best reflected by the janitors’ decision not to report Sandusky’s horrific 2000 sexual assault of a young boy in the Lasch Building shower. The janitors were afraid of being fired for reporting a powerful football coach." - from the report, regarding the "culture of concealment"

When no one feels empowered to make an independent decision and do the right thing, when one person - or a few people - even are perceived to be so powerful that no one feels like they may be openly questioned, the whole university pretty much needs to start over, or indeed, never start again. There is something tragic and disgusting in just about every sentence of the report and summary.

I don't feel bad for his family. I feel bad for the victims' families, especially Victim 2, who never came forward. JoePa, and his family lived, and continue to live, a life of lies for the sake of his image. The family still can't admit that he was not only a mortal man, but one who made grave mistakes that caused others a lot of damage. I have no respect for that kind of deifying.

Not only do I not feel bad for the family, but the statements they continue to put out make me think they're criminal, as well. Saying that this report is untrue, and then saying that "no sane person would turn the other cheek to child molestation." Are they now insinuating that JoePa was insane? How long can all these people deny these horrific proven facts? And to what lengths will they go to to protect the legacy? Go away, Paterno family. If you're going to continue the denial, please just go away.

This. If they want to release some statement about waiting to see all the facts come out before judging or whatever, that's fine, but why do they feel the need to jump out in front of every outlet with such blatant denial of everything that's being proven correct. Every time I see Jay Paterno speak on TV I get angrier and angrier.

Who did JoePa think he was fooling when he told the public AND the grand jury last year that he had no idea of the 1998 investigation until 2011? He was the king of the whole state of Pennsylvania. If one of his coaches was being investigated, he would be the first to know. Everyone knew that. And now it's been proven that he knew it. Perjury. There's no way the Paterno family can spin this now.

And yet, there was Jay on ESPN tonight, doing just that - spinning. He is simply in serious denial as far as I can tell, reiterating that "Joe did not commit any crimes". If I was him or any Paterno, I'd be keeping a low profile right now, tail between my legs.

If you read the statement released yesterday that was purported to be written by JoePa before he died, it's pretty disgusting that after all that has come to light he still didn't get it. He was still putting the institution and football above the victims. Sadly, such blind devotion was probably what prevented any action that may have stopped Sandusky earlier. The whole situation is just depressing beyond words.

has been a little too loud and a little too vocal about protecting dear old dad's reputation. I'm not suprised by these findings and wouldn't be surprised if it were much deeper and much more sinister.

Does anyone besides myself find it odd that the district attorney who decided not to prosecute Sandusky in 1998 has now been missing for several years and is presumed dead? The whole thing was a cover up from top to bottom.

The DA may have been involved in many other prosecutions. But all of Penn State's actions were mob like. They justified these intolerable actions because of the bottom line. They covered up the story at every level. They refused to diminish the reputation or harm any of the top guys until the very end.

The details are indeed strange. Since the day that this scandal broke I've compared the situtation to the scandal that went down at the Texas Youth Commission here in Austin. In a nut shell, the TYC was absolutely infested -- from top to bottom -- with suspected and even convicted pedos. They were throwing after hours "rape parties" in the facility, and like the PSU/Sandusky situation, there were many circumstances in which people turned a blind eye to the situation.

My point is that this is NOT limited to Sandusky -- these sick bastards travel in packs. They need others to be complicit, to cover up, and to participate to make their pathology seem normal. There are myriad of scandals that mirror the PSU scandal almost exactly. As I mentioned, scandals like TYC -- also check out the Belgian Cabinet child sex scandal -- are disturbingly common.

A prosecutor stumbles upon a powerful pedo hive whose tentacles extend into the highest seats of power at PSU, the city, county, and state. Criminal profiling is all about patterns of behaviors, and it is rare when these situations defy the patterns -- there have been reports of similar "sex parties" involving Sandusky and "rich boosters." There is little doubt in my mind that Gricar's disappearance is associated with his attempts to uncover all those that were involved -- he dug too deep and had to be silenced.

Sandusky is for sure a monster, but I think he is a mid-level fall guy who is toeing the line to keep his more powerful cohorts anonymous. Unless he's kept in complete isolation in prion, I fully expect him to be killed very soon after arriving. It will be explained away as a typical to a pedo in prison, but it will likely be to insure that he cannot name names. In fact, I am surprised that he's not hung himself or hard a heart attack already.

Had Paterno lived, I wonder if he would have potentially faced criminal prosecution. From a quick read of the report, it seem Paterno knew what was going on in 1998, although he denied this claim. Obstruction/perjury?

Screw him and the rest of the enablers that let scumbag Sandusky ravage children for over a decade. I hope he rots in hell.

Guy who pisses me off the most: Schultz. One, he's a bald-faced liar ("gee, I had no idea there was a '98 investigation.") That right there should jump him to the top of the shit list. Two, he's the guy in charge of the campus police. When Paterno goes to him and tells him, hey, this is what I was told, you have to admit Paterno could have a reasonable expectation that by telling the head of the campus police, he's doing what he needs to do and it'll be properly taken care of. Not everything JoePa did was right but Schultz is a university VP, the head of campus police, and supposed to be sort of a watchdog on guys like the AD Curley.

The report lumps Spanier, Schultz, Curley, and Paterno all in one, but IMO there are varying levels of culpability here and Schultz is #1 in my book.

Respectfully disagree. JoePa is my public enemy #1 as he held the most power and had the widest circle of influence over the lack of action. Shultz may have held the most direct responsibility but make no mistake, if JoePa wanted the investigation to proceed it would proceed and if he wanted it stopped, it would be stopped - Shultz or no Shultz.

You honestly believe that if Shultz had ignored the great and wonderful Paterno's wishes and moved forward he'd still have job 10 minutes later? I don't. He was a titular figurehead at best; a minion at worst, title notwithstanding, and the King got exactly what he wanted.

Sorry, but you're asking me to think that JoePa was some kind of mafia-don in charge of the entire Penn State operation. Vice Presidents are not "titular figureheads" and to call him a minion of Paterno is absurd - he didn't owe his position to Paterno's influence and he didn't supervise Paterno. He was the VP for finance and business.

I would believe this more if you were saying this about Curley, but Schultz is a guy who is and should be outside that sphere of influence. Paterno was revered, but do not confuse that with having the entire university from top to bottom on his puppet strings. Schultz ran the police department, Paterno did not. Penn State, like any flagship public university, is a massive operation and I think you're overrating Paterno's influence on how it's run.

So yes, I honestly believe "if Schultz had ignored the great and wonderful Paterno's wishes and moved forward he'd still have job 10 minutes later" and that in itself assumes that Paterno reported the incident and then somehow, outside the scope of the report, instructed Schultz to keep it quiet and only tell people that Paterno could control with his puppet strings, which apparently included Spanier.

Think about it: if "the great and wonderful Paterno" really wanted the incident covered up, wouldn't it have been a lot simpler just to never do anything at all after McQueary came to him, instead of going to Schultz and Curley and then saying "oh by the way, don't investigate"?

Think about it: if "the great and wonderful Paterno" really wanted the incident covered up, wouldn't it have been a lot simpler just to never do anything at all after McQueary came to him, instead of going to Schultz and Curley and then saying "oh by the way, don't investigate"?

Absolutely not! He had to do something to satisfy McQueary. Apparently they did just enough to keep him quiet for a long time. Ignoring him would have presented a much greater risk of him reporting what he saw to others.

I think you are vastly underestimating the sphere of influence Paterno had as football coach of PSU. Yes, i DO believe he had the ability to turn a Vice-President into a titular figurehead, especally at an institution where football was revered and worshipped. If you honestly believe that in Happy Valley the Vice-President had more real power than Paterno I think you are kidding yourself.

Different university but do you remember Tressel's last presser when Gordon Gee said he hoped Tressel didn't fire him? Gee is the President of the University and he wasnt entirely joking. Power isn't found in titles.

But what made Gee's statement so damn ridiculous was that it was a pathetic attempt to downplay his role in the scandal when the whole world could see who should've been taking responsibility. Likewise, Schultz can in no way hide behind the power of Joe Paterno for his actions or lack thereof. Just because Paterno had a ton of it doesn't mean Schultz didn't also.

Paterno is the head football coach, Schultz is the guy in charge of the campus police: Schultz did have the power to make an investigation happen, he didn't need Paterno's approval, and even if what you say is 100% entirely true (which I don't believe) it doesn't excuse Schultz from being the major culprit in my book. You** own up to the responsibilities of your job, and oh by the way, don't be a lying prick when you're asked about prior investigations and you deny knowing of them despite being heavily involved in the whole process.

**Having had someone else bite my head off on this very subject because he thought I specifically meant him when I said "you," please realize that this is the generic "you."

I don't think Paterno had the power to order Schultz around, and I find the idea that Schultz feared for his job if he investigated McQueary's accusation far-fetched. I do think that Paterno had a good idea that Schultz would go along with what he wanted. As I recall, he spoke to Curley first, so he could have known that he was on board before they went to talk to him.

As far as telling McQueary to shut up, that's a pretty risky approach. McQueary was very upset. Who could say where he would go next. Ever heard of plausible deniability? Paterno had it. I don't think there should be any of it left though.

When Paterno goes to him and tells him, hey, this is what I was told, you have to admit Paterno could have a reasonable expectation that by telling the head of the campus police, he's doing what he needs to do and it'll be properly taken care of.

This I agree with. Unfortunately, Schultz did exactly what Paterno wanted.

As far the rest, if it's this hard for you to come to grips with what Paterno did, I have a little more sympathy for the PSU faithful and what they are going through.

Just a guess, but plausible deniability? Sounds easy and lame, but it's the main defense JoePa apologists have been using this whole time -- he reported it to his superiors. But if he did so knowing he could then tell them to hold off on the investigation, it's easier for him to say he did the right thing while not really worrying about the repercussions

Still don't buy it. The competing premises of Paterno being powerful enough to own the president, vice president, and athletic director and yet weak enough to be taken down by a lowly GA are mutually exclusive. Only one or the other can be true. McQueary could've told Curley and if Paterno owned him, it'd do no good; he could've told campus police and if Paterno owned Schultz it'd do no good; he could've told city police and they'd've just said they have no jurisdiction because it's on campus property. If Paterno is that damn powerful that he can tell the president what to do, these nebulous "others" won't have any effect either.

Also, I am not saying anyone here today is doing this, but in the past, I have had similar arguments twisted around to where I'm defending Paterno, defending child molester enablers, etc. So I want to make it clear, FOR THE RECORD, I'm not "defending" anyone.

But neither am I trying to win a righteousness contest. Just trying to look at things with some logic instead of raw, kill 'em all emotion. And the heart of what I'm arguing is that, first of all, it's my opinion that Gary Schultz is the guy who bears the most responsibility (after the obvious), and second, Joe Paterno is not some grand, strings-pulling conspiracist who worked to cover up wrongdoing; his crime is mainly ignoring the whole issue and wishing it would go away.

Based on the evidence, the only known, intervening factor between the decision made on February 25, 2001 by Messrs. Spanier, Curley and Schulz to report the incident to the Department of Public Welfare, and then agreeing not to do so on February 27th, was Mr. Paterno’s February 26th conversation with Mr. Curley.

The other three were in agreement, then they heard from Paterno and changed their minds. You work it out.

Can you think of a single incident in the last, say, three decades in which any PSU official took a decision over the objections of Joe Paterno?

When the first inklings appeared in the press of possible wrongdoing, or even gross negligence, on the part of Paterno there was unrest in the streets. The students and the community weren't rioting because of a threat to the president or the athletic director or the university, they were out there in support of their beloved head coach.

That's power--not the fictional kind that sits on an organizational chart but the real thing. Every official at any level in the university has to have known who the community--students, townspeople, alumni, donors--would support in the event of a conflict with Joe Paterno, and it's been that way for far longer than any person other than Paterno has been associated with the school. Every single person working there took their job with the understanding that that was how it was; anyone truly uncomfortable with it would never have gone there in the first place.

1) Paterno doesn't need to "own" anybody to persuade them to go along with him. They didn't have to agree, but he could wield a lot of influence.

2) McQueary was a wild card. If you remember, he first went to his father. His father told him to inform Paterno, a man he greatly respected. You can easily imagine McQueary telling his dad of his meeting with Paterno and them both thinking he would take care of it. If Paterno tells McQueary to shut up, he's going back to his dad for more advice. The chances his dad knows someone he trusts in the state police, FBI, media and/or legal community are pretty good. Paterno took the best possible route for keeping McQueary quiet.

I'm not sure how the Big Ten Presidents can read this and conclude that PSU should be allowed to stay in the conference. They will take a $$$ hit, but the Big Ten's entire brand will be trashed if PSU is allowed to stay. How can we go about touting the "integrity" of the conference and our academic credentials with Penn State around?

Penn State's is now lower than Bob Jones University in the public's eye. Why should we have to live with a school like that in our conference?

but how would that go down? In all seriousness, I really think that it is a possibility that Penn State will not be a member of the Big Ten, I don't know whether the conference is going to have a choice. Logistically, I just don't know how that would take place but I have a feeling that the wheels may already be turning.

You do the right thing and deal with the consequences later. PSU would probably sue; the BTN network's sponsors (Fox?) will have a bit of a heart attack. The football championship game, and the contracts associated with it, will be a real challenge.

But, the B1G has a ton of money. And there's Notre Dame out there. And schools itching to leave their conferences, like Rutgers. (Missouri probably landed too well.)

Just do the right (and ONLY) thing, tell PSU to leave and not let the door hit its @$$ on the way out, and figure out the next step later.

The coverup by the University to protect the football program is what has done it to me. I have said it time and time again that Penn State University [note: not their fans, or alumni] is doing their best job to get kicked out of the Big Ten. This report seals the deal for me.

On a sidenote, I do feel really bad for the faculty, students, and alumni that are going to take a hit of this whole scandal. You gotta think that the actions of a football coach will lower enrollment, and put a tarnish on the degree that these students and alumni are so proud of. But most of all, I feel sorry for the victims, I really hope that they can get some closure and everyone who had a part of the cover up gets the punishment that they deserve.

Feel bad for the Big Ten too. Our conference is taking a major hit regardless of whether they get booted. Both options are devastating to the Big Ten. Option 1) you keep a bunch of child rapist enablers in the Big Ten and the integrity of the conference is trashed. Option 2) you lose a crap load of money, and any shot at being a major player in future expansion talks (say goodbye to any shot at ND).

I think the reputation of the Big Ten is much easier to fix compared to Penn State. If they were to boot Penn State and get another university that places a higher emphasis on education than sports, like a University of Virginia, it would be fixed.

Honestly, before this whole scandal broke, Penn State was one of my favorite Big Ten universities. Now they are infront of Ohio State for my least favorite Big Ten University. JoePa was a fraud. Represent with honor... I am calling B.S... If you really wanted to represent with honor it would have been reported to the police to protect THE CHILDREN, not your football team. This whole story is absolutely disgusting. Penn State has done damage that is beyond repairable to their image...

what makes this report different than any of the testimony in the Sandusky trial? And, what makes the info in the report actionable by the NCAA or B10?

Unfortunately, all I read in this is a very concise summary of what we already know. Admittedly, it pulls no punches, but I'm not sure there is any more substance. The unfortunate part being, that no more penalties will come for the university or the football program.

PSU leaders and Paterno were all aware of the 1998 investigation. Paterno followed the '98 investigation closely. All of them lied about not knowing about it to the Grand Jury including Paterno. When McQueary reported the 2001 incident, they already knew and suspected Sandusky but still did nothing. There was still a question about whether they knew about the 1998 investigation.

...that the Sandusky trial was only concerned with the criminal acts Sandusky perpetrated on his victims. The Freeh report casts a much wider umbrella by probing into the actions of those around Sandusky (Paterno, Spanier, etc) who provided him with a nearly risk free environment in which to operate.

Self-sanctions would be very appropriate here. I'm sure the NCAA and B1G agree. So far PSU has done absolutely nothing. I don't think it will end that way, PSU was waiting for this report. Giving the NCAA, (and the B1G), the choice of overstepping their authority or allowing PSU to go completely unpunished would be a very big gamble. We're seeing the NCAA trying to nudge PSU away from taking it.

Is the coverup of the 1998 incident and Paterno's denial of those events while he was still alive. So, Paterno covered it up and lied about it later. That is very damning to his legacy. If he were still alive he would have been prosecuted. That is why it is new news.

US Board of Education is the current lead on investigations and punishment. By the time they get done, there might not be anything for the NCAA to sanction.

There is basically a waiting list to investigate Penn State right now. Federal government is first in line, the NCAA and B1G/CiC are fighting it out for second place.

Also check Page 67, note Y of the Freeh Report. The report suggests McQueary was hired in 2004 as payback for keeping his mouth shut about the shower incident. Giving out jobs on your coaching staff in exchange for help with a criminal coverup is definitely something the NCAA can nail you for since it involves misuse of Athletic Department funds and hiring policies.

Note Y appears to say exactly the opposite... It says the investigation "found no information to suggest that McQueary's selection for that job was related to witnessing Sandusky assault a boy" and that three interviewees indicated he was "very well qualified for the position."

I agree on the rest though. Penn State's accredidation might be in danger here.

There is exactly 0% chance that anything happens to their accreditaion. The government is not going to demolish a school of 50k students because it will do so much damage to the higher education in Pennsylvania and the surrounding area. They'll see it for what it was - the failure of a few people.

Now, if the Board of Trustees and members of the academic side of things were implicated in the coverup, maybe something would happen. But besides Spanier, none of the figures involved in the coverup had anything to do with the academic side of things at Penn State.

that the accredititation is in danger, but I think it very, very unlikely that it will be lost. It's more likely that the threat will be used to leverage changes in the institutional structures. The important thing is to make sure that concern for the reputation of the football program never again overrides all moral and ethical and educational requirements. Just how far the accrediting bodies will feel they need to force a de-emphasis of athletics or the football program is an open question: it could be anything from sweeping personnel changes to a U. of Chicago-style gutting of the entire department (that's not likely either, but it's the most extreme possibility I can imagine).

The only way they actually lose their accreditation is if they think it's a bluff, and call it. They won't.

How much PSU will be left? Civil lawsuits are just getting started. I don't know what their endowment is... but this is the highest level of authority at a public university - the president and 2 VPs (and the football coach). Football aside, you have a huge scandal and cover up by public employees, 4 of which were probably close to the top earning positions in the state. This is a big deal, and while I doubt they'll lose their status as a university, to think huge penalties aren't coming from MANY bodies of oversight is naive.

And an active coverup and lying about one's involvement are quite different. Appreciate your response MA. Surprised the report did not cover other cases where Paterno might have controlled University responses to football players indiscretions/crimes. Have always been suspicious that Paterno was so powerful at PSU that he manipulated and controlled response and punishments for players to the benefit of his program. Hence the issues with their compliance person Traponey(sp?) a few years ago that PSU fans dismissed as a disgruntled ex-employee.

I grew up in PA and always thought PSU was a weird cult that would go to great lengths to protect their football program. All I can say though is:

God damn.

I have no issues with the research arm of PSU, but I never want to interact with their athletic department again. Get Missouri on the phone, off to fund their leaving of the SEC and kick PSU's ass out the door.

The ncaa dropped the death penalty on smu for paying players. They came down very hard on Baylor basketball for the murder cover up which was basically only the coach covering up.
I do not know how they do not come down as hard on penn state as they did smu. SMU was only paying players and got the death penalty. This instance is an entire program from head coach to the president covering it up for 15 years to protect their golden goose football program. How that is not worse than paying players is beyond my imagination.

"Murder cover up" isn't really a good phrase for what happened there. Bliss wasn't covering up the murder; he was trying to cover up the fact that he'd been slipping money to the victim (and others, no doubt) in gross violation of NCAA regs, a fact that was about to come to light in the course of the murder investigation. As best as I can understand his motives, he was asking players and coaches to tell the authorities that the victim was a drug dealer to try to create a plausible story for the source of the cash that didn't involve his own wallet.

On the one hand that's not nearly so heinous as what happened at PSU because it didn't involve facilitation of continuing crimes; on the other hand it more precisely fell within the NCAA's bailiwick because it involved improper benefits.

...but I think what he's saying is that interfering with the investigation of the murder of one of your players, and while you're at it trying to ruin the posthumous reputation of the victim, just to cover your own sorry ass in an NCAA regulatory violation is worse than covering up a murder.

I don't know that I agree, but what Bliss did is it's own peculiar form of contemptible.

(And just to keep the facts straight though it's off topic and irrelevant, I don't know that there was anything indirect about Bliss's payments.)

my initial thoughts on this entire case. I honestly hold PSU and Joe Paterno more reponsible for everything that happened than Sandusky. First, Sandusky is a sick man who deserves to spend the rest of his life rotting in a prison. I can't even relate to what he did, he was a messed up individual. I can however relate to Paterno and everyone else at PSU. I don't care who I knew was raping little boys, I would be completely apauled and would immediately have them taken down. As we all would, correct??? Not only did they try to sweep this under the rug, they allowed him to continue on working with little kids, giving him access to their facilities and knowing what he was doing.

It's disgusting, PSU does deserve to be HAMMERED by the NCAA. This has nothing to do with football, yes, but it is a TOTAL lack of institutional control. There has never been such an obvious more destructive case of institutional controll in the history of sports.

I have some sympathy--SOME--for lower-level people who failed to be tenacious about pursuing their concerns when their first reports were ignored or covered up. I get why a janitor could be scared. I assume said janitor doesn't sleep well at night, but I get why someone at his level wouldn't push, keep pushing, call the press, etc. The world can be very hard on whistleblowers.

But some of these people are in very powerful positions. They have the clout to do what needed to be done, to make people listen, to endure and rise above the fallout when disbelievers started their shenanigans (as they always do and inevitably would have). Joe Paterno being Exhibit A.

Unfortunately, you can't change the behaviour of the future Sanduskys of the world.

You can change the behaviour of the future Shultzs, Paterno's, and Spanier's by prosecuting them, changing transpareny laws and sanctioning the university. That way the next Sandusky is arrested in 1999 and not 2012.

I can't think of any other appropriate response. Sure, none of the "Old Main" are left at PSU now, and it would be like punishing all the current students, alumni, players, etc., for the past acts of a few. But there have to be the most grave consequences for the most evil acts. When the very upper echelons of an academic institutions have become so perversely warped because of one sport, the message has to be sent to every institution in the country -- for profit or not -- that this sort of thing cannot be tolerated, and that any institution is bound to the decisions and acts of its past leaders. And the B1G needs to make that statement.

Everyone at PSU is going to survive, it's not like students can't get a degree, etc. But whatever PSU stood for in the past, it now stands as a bastion of something the Nazis and Soviets did -- decision-making to continue allowing evil to occur, merely to keep alive the false appearance of an ethical regime. And let's be clear, the Old Main was, indeed, a regime.

Lawsuits, no championship game in football, yada yada. The repurcussions are immense and dizzying and probably, if I thought about it, prohibitive. But I really will not be satisfied until the Big Ten does the right thing and says, PSU, get the f#$% out of our conference.

(And maybe make that call to ND and beg and plead and offer them a carveout or something... hell even Rutgers would suffice...)

Sure, none of the "Old Main" are left at PSU now, and it would be like punishing all the current students, alumni, players, etc., for the past acts of a few. But there have to be the most grave consequences for the most evil acts.

I disagree. Well, not with the idea of grave consequences. But putting these two sentences together sounds like "I don't care who gets punished for this, someone has got to go down for it." When you say "there have to be the most grave consequences" it definitely sounds like it doesn't matter who suffers them.

As for me, I have to say I'm satisfied with what has happened so far. Sandusky will spend the rest of his life in prison, Paterno has lost the thing most important to him (his legacy), Spanier will spend the rest of his life in disgraced retirement, and Curley and Schultz are facing the appropriate** level of charges. I want consequences, I don't want them to be borne of overreaching righteousness.

**Probably. I don't know what the possible punishments are, though I'm sure they involve jail time.

True, true. Which also ought to lead to another question: how much could the Second Mile leadership have done to disassociate itself with Sandusky? I didn't agree with the Freeh report's assertion that blocking Sandusky from the facilities back in 1998 would've prevented future assaults; he still had access to the kids through Second Mile and some of the assaults did take place at his house.

Today with the report released by Judge Louis Freeh, the Penn State Board of Trustees delivered on the commitment we made last November when we engaged Judge Freeh to conduct an independent investigation into the University's actions regarding former Penn State employee, Jerry Sandusky, and the handling of allegations of the child abuse crimes of which he has since been found guilty.

Judge Freeh and his team conducted a rigorous, eight-month investigation into all aspects of the University's actions to determine where breakdowns occurred and what changes should be made for the future. We like many others have eagerly anticipated Judge Freeh's Report of the findings of his investigation.

His report has just been released at http://thefreehreportonpsu.com/ and we currently are reviewing his findings and recommendations. We expect a comprehensive analysis of our policies, procedures and controls related to identifying and reporting crimes and misconduct, including failures or gaps that may have allowed alleged misconduct to go undetected or unreported. We will provide our initial response later today.

We want to ensure we are giving the report careful scrutiny and consideration before making any announcements or recommendations. We are convening an internal team comprising the Board of Trustees, University administration and our legal counsel to begin analyzing the report and digesting Judge Freeh's findings.

As we anticipate the review and approval process will take some time, our initial response and immediate next steps will be presented at 3:30 at the Dayton/Taylor Conference Room at the Hilton Scranton & Conference Center.

These top-line reactions will provide an overview of our process for developing and implementing a plan once we have studied the report and have a better understanding of what it means and how we can implement findings to strengthen Penn State's role as a leading academic institution and ensure that what occurred will never be allowed to happen again.

I don't recall PA having a "failure to report" law (like many public education institutions) that would make these all crimes. PSU also is one of the only public universities without a public disclosure law. Changing these laws and doing whatever they can to hold Spanier, Schultz, Curly, and the previous Board accountable (including jail time) will go a lot farther than NCAA penalties.

I just spent a bit of time over on BlackShoesDiary to see how the locals were handling today and it truly is facinating. One...seriously ONE guy is saying that JoePa may not have been the saintly figure they made him out to be and he's getting hammered. Here are the takeaways from their open thread Part I:

1. This is all media driven

2. If people would just bother to read the WHOLE report and not rely on the media they'd see things arent that bad

3. Joe did what he could, just as he claimed

4. Sandusky was basically a lone wolf operating outside the knowledge of others except maybe Shultz. But not sure yet.

It may very well take that community and that "cult", if you will, years to process this, if indeed they choose to do so. Eventually, they might go through their own version of "Vergangenheitsbewaeltigung", but the reaction will be delayed certainly.

As for the second point, reading the report actually enlightens folks to the fact that it was actually worse than many thought, so if this is their definition of "not that bad", I am not sure I want to know what the folks posting on BlackShoeDiaries would term as "bad".

To me, the most salient fact about why this could not happen in A2 is because at the time football was building its rep UM was already an (inter)national university. PSU in the 60s was essentially a glorified commuter school with essentially no reputation. Now one could argue its academic rise was along a distinct, parallel track to football, but I frankly don't buy it. Football and (more importanntly) the supposed ethos that guided it as defined by the (single) person that was JoePa was always within the first three sentences of any promotional materials for the school at large.

In a way, the difference is like the difference between many european countries and the US; they have distinct individuals (Joan of Arc, WIlliam Tell, etc) who form the foundation for their national identity while in the US it could be argued that it is defined by the decision of one person (Washington) to not be bigger than the whole. Washington left at the right moment, thus ensuring that the constitution was bigger than the man. I feel that UM is like this (even with Bo) and that Paterno, tragically, did not leave PSU that way.

Your first paragraph is dead on, in that Paterno acted as a huge benefactor and fundraiser for Penn State's academics . He donated, I think $4 million to the library, which is named after his family, he endowed a chair of English literature, and his fundraising certainly brought in exponentially more money for other departments. This is going to be bigger than just tearing down a statue.

You make some excellent points. However, I don't think PSU was ever a commuter school, given it's remote location. It was growing rapidly shortly before Paterno took over. I do think much of it's growth paralleled Paterno's career. For example, the medical school opened in 1967. It's construction and funding preceded his reign.

Was say "no" to the Michigan job. Maybe a bit tongue in cheek, but damn, all this could be happening here right now. Is there a different environment between Ann Arbor and Happy Valley? Maybe. Maybe.

But to have your leadership fail you so badly at a University, I'm not sure how you recover as a school. You can implode a football program, but how do you wash the stain from a whole community? The people who had the power to stop it not only let victims be further abused, and let new victims start being abused, they've spread their harm to countless thousands who did nothing wrong, but will forever be tarnished by their actions and lack of actions. This may be the first time ever that cancer was a good thing, because Paterno got off easy; and hopefully everyone still around pays for what they did.

Sandusky played at PSU in the mid-60s, before JoePa became the head coach, so he might have wanted to stay there all along.

Regardless, I've got to believe that U-M officials would have had the good sense to step in and put a stop to his criminal activity - if not in 1998 then certainly in 2001. If JoePa had come here, he'd have walked into an established, respected university. PSU, OTOH, was a commuter school. As much as we love football, we're not as dependent on it as PSU has been. I don't think we would allow the head football coach to competely run the school, like Paterno did.

But how old are you? It hasn't seemed that way under Hoke, or Rich, or Lloyd, or (obviously) Mo...but I wonder if when Bo was around what he could have pushed through if he had wanted. It's been awhile since we've had anyone of Paterno's level of treatment. I mean, we'll be approaching 25 years soon. Now Bo never let it get to the point where he was bigger than the program. He retired before he had to, when he knew it was right for the program, his health, and had his staff in place. He didn't want to become Bear Bryant. But if he had continued, he was ahead of Paterno in wins. He could have been Paterno if he had wanted to. Would Michigan have been any better at stopping him? I would hope.

Ironically enough, Bo resigned from his post as AD because he was annoyed at the way the Big Ten university presidents held talks with Penn State about joining the conference without consulting the ADs back in 1990. On the other side of the aisle, it was Paterno, not PSU's president, who spearheaded PSU's discussions with the Big Ten. Bo didn't have anywhere near the same status at Michigan that Paterno had at Penn State

And it may have been a factor, but it was hardly the reason he resigned. Not wanting to be over Moeller's shoulder, and really only taking the job just so he could appoint his successor (rather than hang around to make sure everyone had jobs) were stronger reasons. He wasn't doing much ADing anyway...most of the work was done by the guy who took over. He was the figurehead and got to make big calls. But the fact alone that the coach could become AD while he was still coaching says a lot.

Look at what happened after he left. You had a President who was pushed out by the Regents because he didn't consult with them about firing a coach because the President wanted to rush him into a resignation before Bo got back from out of the country, when Bo was saying for no one to sign or do anything till he got back. Bo knew he had power. He just used it better than Paterno did.

And that was my original point. An article from last year, on the difference-

Nike is removing Joe Paternos name from their Child Care building on their campus.
I seem to remember Phil Knight at Paternos wake speaking so highly of him and making an ass of himself so why the change of heart Phil?

what will or should be done to them from the outside, how can Penn State field a football team in good conscience this fall? I see nothing but shame from them taking the field six weeks from now, and they should seriously look into suspending the season until more institutional changes are made.

I'm also glad they're currently off the schedule. Seeing a program like Penn State's come to Michigan Stadium under these circumstances would be disconcerting, to say the least.

that you're agreeing with this next statement, but if (intentional use of if) Penn State continues competing in the conference in football, they will be better off coming back in 2013 or 2014 saying, "look at these drastic steps we took". Now, what do they hope to accomplish with football in 2012? Bringing pride to the school? That's beyond comprehension at this point.

I'm not sure how much I agree with wiping out the season this year. Canceling this year's football season would seem to mostly punish the students and athletes that had zero to do with the tragedies that occurred.

I ablsolutely agree that drastic changes need to be made with the university infrastructure I'm just not sure how canceling football 6 weeks from the season would help. Now if Paterno were still around the program it would be a different story.

Penn State football right now represents something inconsistent with the ideals of college athletics. If they were to say "we're going to review everything in the football program, top to bottom, make changes to ensure we have the most transparent environment in football, and field a team when we can be secure in that knowledge" then reintroduce the team under those circumstances, they would have taken big steps regain the qualities expected out of a Big Ten institution.

Now, I see no way their team can bring honor, glory, whatever to their school. It looks like a money grab to play 2012 out like nothing (or something far more minor) happened.

Taking one year off will do nothing to change that impression. This will take a good number of years to even come close to that whether there is a football program or not. The quotes about honor or whatever are meaningless advertising at any school becaues when it comes down to it college football is absolutely a money grab.

I absolutely think they should do the things you have outlined but I'm not sure the current students or players should be deprived of the opportunity to feel a little good about themselves because they're going to be getting a lot of scrutiny on them either way. What would be very good is for the current team and staff to speak about the tragedy this season and begin the attempts to restore their image. If they came out and said that Paterno was not the man they were lead to believe and the program does need to make big changes, don't you think that would have a big impact?

On the contrary dcmaizeandblue, it will begin to change the impression that the University puts sports and it's reputation above all else. Sure, none of the student athletes and few coaches had anything to do with the Paterno tenure but that does not matter. PSU's reputation will be tarnished for quite some time.

I think if the University wants to mend its imagine then it should

1) Abandon the football program for 1-2 seasons. This will allow some time to pass and the beginning of a healing process to take place.

2) Petition the NCAA to allow all student atheletes the ability to transfer to another university and play immediately.

3) Start a fund that will benefit all victims and plead with the alumni to donate.

These are a few ideas that will help. I don't see how playing one game next season will help the school move on.

The rest of the school's athletic programs should remain untouched.

Finally, I believe it would be best if the University officials would take these actions. This would demonstrate that they want to lead in changing the culture at Penn State.

The fact that they didn't have anything to do with it does matter. The season is 6 weeks away how could they possibly cancel it at this point? I have no problem with those actions AFTER this season. What player is going to be able to find a new team and play in 6 weeks? They could announce that following this season they're suspending the program and that would give the players plenty of time to find new schools and decide what to do.

I'm sorry I want the people responsible punished. Canceling one or two football seasons does little to nothing in my eyes. Public acknowledgement by the program of these tragedies and number 3 on your list would do way more.

Do you feel this way about the many, many athletes over the years who've been forced to watch their program go on probation, etc. for things they didn't do? Innocent players get screwed in these things . . . that's life.

The reason you sanction PSU here is to serve as a deterrent to other programs. Since it seems that people often can't be trusted to do the right thing on their own, make the punishment for doing the wrong thing so hideous that they have no choice.

Give them the death penalty and the players free release. They can pick up the pieces in 2014. Until then, I don't want to see this school and its pathetically misguided priorities competing in college football, and certainly not under the the Big Ten banner.

(c) Twelve-Member Conference Championship Game. [FBS/FCS] A conference championship game between division champions of a member conference of 12 or more institutions that is divided into two divisions (of six or more institutions each), each of which conducts round-robin, regular-season competition among the members of that division;

As long as the team was only suspended, the conference would still have 12 or more institutions. There is no requirement that all 12 teams compete, only that each division conducts a round-robin.

I realize I'm reaching here, but I can't imagine them cancelling the championship game. I also can't see the NCAA not coming down hard on PSU.

In the past, we could have just relied on The Game to be the championship game, but OSU isn't eligible this year....

Thank goodness Michigan does not play Penn State this year. Michigan should refuse to ever play in Beaver Stadium again. Its not a home to football anymore--its a home to child rapists and apologists, and should be burnt to the ground. That is the only way Penn State could ever recover. And anyone with a kind word for Paterno now is a fool. Could there be anything more disgusting than turning your back on the sexual exploitation of a little kid?

I usually think that Millen is merely stupid - every time he talks, it's easy to understand how the Lions went 0-16 - but today you can add disgusting and delusional to the list. Yeah, it's all Spannier's fault...

Seriously, burn it the fuck down! That's all I can think of at this point.

I thought about the B10 banning the football program for 2 years, but without football what does PSU contribute? Basketball, Baseball? Oh, yeah. Women's Volleyball.

I said it before when this started to break and it's even more appropriate now...How many young boys were sacrificed so that Joe could be the alltime winningest coach? At the least, the NCAA should strip every win back to the known beginning of the coverup.

What further infuriates me is that if the monster had kept his sodomy habit confined to Centre County we still wouldn't know about it. When he jumped to Clinton County his protectors couldn't help him any longer and it went to the grand jury.

Burn it down!

I got into a heated discussion with 2 apologists tonight at my son's gf's soccer game. They started the "Joe did all these wonderful things, blah blah blah". I told them to read the Freeh report and then tell me that Joe wasn't involved with Jerry buggering little kids.